A Little Girl's 'Troubles' Put Her in Coma
A really odious bit of journalism in the New York Times today. For an article on a monstrously abused -- as in put her in a coma -- little girl, some brainless boob slapped on this headline:
"Custody and Abuse Cases Swirl Around a Troubled Girl on Life Support." What's wrong with "abused"? What's wrong with "beaten to a pulp"?
"Troubled" implies that this girl, all of 11, was a drug addict or otherwise screwed up, and not the helpless victim of a family of monsters.
The story goes on to dwell too long on the self-serving defense that this child was "troubled" and "self-harming," while failing to explore why her baby sitter failed to drop a dime when she saw the loving auntie "kick [the child] down the cellar stairs three times in a row." Was she waiting for No. 4?
You know, things like this make me wonder: Does anyone actually read this stuff before they run the presses?
"Custody and Abuse Cases Swirl Around a Troubled Girl on Life Support." What's wrong with "abused"? What's wrong with "beaten to a pulp"?
"Troubled" implies that this girl, all of 11, was a drug addict or otherwise screwed up, and not the helpless victim of a family of monsters.
The story goes on to dwell too long on the self-serving defense that this child was "troubled" and "self-harming," while failing to explore why her baby sitter failed to drop a dime when she saw the loving auntie "kick [the child] down the cellar stairs three times in a row." Was she waiting for No. 4?
You know, things like this make me wonder: Does anyone actually read this stuff before they run the presses?
posted by Mediacrity at 11:04 AM
<< Home